1 The Sequencing of Transnational and National Social Movement Mobilization: The Organizational Mobilization of the Global and U.S. Environmental Movements John D. McCarthy and Erik Johnson Department of Sociology Penn State University A paper prepared for the conference on “Transnational Processes and Social Movements” at the Villa Serbelloni, Bellagio, Italy, July 22-26, 2003.2Abstract Is the mobilization of national and transnational social movements, as reflected in their organizational dynamics, mainly a top down or bottom up process? That is, does the increasing density of populations of transnational social movement organizations (TSMOs) promote subsequent growth in the density of populations of state level social movement organizations (SMOs), or visa versa? We approach the research question by analyzing the co-evolution of the populations of transnational and national environmental SMOs in the U.S. between 1945 and 2000. Our findings indicate that, early in the period under observation, growth in the population density and rate of founding among national environmental SMOs preceded growth among international TSMOs, demonstrating a clear sequence in the rapid emergence of the two movement populations. There is some indication that this process is reversed temporarily in the more recent time period. We discuss the generalizability of these results to other nations, movement populations, and levels of geographical scope. We conclude with a brief discussion of the elements necessary to construct a more rigorous test of the top-down thesis of mobilization.3Introduction Is the mobilization of national and transnational social movements, as reflected in their organizational dynamics, mainly a top down or bottom up process? That is, does the increasing density of populations of transnational social movement organizations (TSMOs) within an issue domain promote subsequent growth in the density of populations of state level social movement organizations (SMOs) within that same domain, or visa versa? In this paper we begin to address this question for the transnational and U. S. environmental movements Conventional logic would suggest that movements are built from the ground up, that national movement organizational populations expand as an outgrowth of the spread of local groups and, as well, that international movements are established as the outgrowth of national movements. The U.S. anti-toxics movement, for example, began as a collection of autonomous local organizations and did not coalesce into a national movement until after 1980 when a national infrastructure was established linking these local groups together. Further, many of the national groups themselves grew out of initially local struggles, as is the case with the Citizens Clearinghouse for Hazardous Waste that originated in the purely local struggle over contamination at Love Canal, NY. (Szasz, 1994) At the international level, Chatfield (1997) asserts “TSMOs mainly began as informal networks of people who shared common concerns, often in national associations” (p. 28). Similarly, David Westby in his study of the Swedish anti-bomb movement argues “…that many TSMs [Transnational Social Movements] originate specifically in a national context, suggesting that many of them become transnational4through a step-like process in response to political opportunity.” (2002:1) Organizationally, this implies that the expanding vitality of national populations of SMOs may lead to the formation of transnational groups in the same issue domain. Empirically, however, the sequencing of aggregate national and international movement organizational mobilization remains very much an open question.1 One alternative to the bottom up thesis, is that the emergence and growth of populations of transnational SMOs may be an important factor in the emergence and growth of their sister populations at the national level. Frank and his colleagues (1999, 2000; Meyer et al., 1997), for instance, strongly suggest that the international mobilization of the environmental movement preceded both the mobilization of national environmental movements as well as expanded national level public policy attention to environmental issues. They assert that environmental TSMOs form first and are later followed by intergovernmental treaties and organizations before nation states finally begin to formalize environmental issues within internal state centered agenda-setting structures. In their model of state action, “blueprints of nation-state environmentalism” are developed first in world society before being diffused and acted upon by individual nations. “The top-down global explanation proves stronger than the bottom-up domestic alternative: the global institutionalization of the principle that nation-states bear responsibility for environmental protection drives national activities to protect the environment” (2000, 96). They go on to say, “This is especially true in countries with dense ties to world society…” (2000:96) such as the United States. And there is some 1 Seidman (2002) argues that the typical, and taken for granted, empirical focus of movement researchers that starts with local participants and moves through state level mobilization ending with nation-state targets constitutes a lens that narrows understanding of globalized movement processes. She says about this lens, “This bottom-up approach may limit social movement theorists’ ability to explore fully the transnational side of collective action or social movement mobilization.” (345)5evidence suggesting that a similar pattern may characterize the global evolution of human rights SMOs (Ball, 2000). Several case studies of recent mobilizations buttress expectations of the importance of top-down, transnational to national, organizational processes. Two transnational social movement organizations, Earth Action (Smith, 2002b) and People’s Global Action (Wood, 2002), for instance, have worked to facilitate national level mobilization around social change issues. This mechanism mirrors a similar one linking the state and local levels where top down chapter proliferation and technical assistance generate subsequent local mobilization. (McCarthy, forthcoming) We are unaware of the existence, however, of any estimate of the proportion of state level SMOs in any issue domain that are chapters or branches of TSMOs. Some credible